Let me know how you get on with the Fedex delivery. I had a load of problems with them a few years ago in regard to the VAT payable. They asked me to pay a VAt invoice but would not reveal it to me so I had no idea of the sum! It took me days to escalate the issue to a senior manager and I managed to complete the payment with only a day in hand before they threatened to return it to the vendor.
If you ordered through the BJC UK website it might not be an issue if they are registered with HMRC for VAT . BTW I notice that our lovely Chancellor has removed the VAT allowance on low value deliveries but I think that your purchase was over the limit anyway.
So, if I understand well, in case I replace my existing Audioquest Vodka ethernet cable (Sotm switch to Vivaldi Upsampler) with a standard cat 6 utp cable, I will hear a true and obvious sound improvement ?
Yes Pete I did purchase via the UK site. Whether is makes any difference with the VAT, I’ll soon find out. Apparently it’s winging it’s way across the pond as we speak. I’ll keep you posted.
To my hear it is fine, but as everyone is saying that shielded Ethernet cables could create poor sound with dCS gear, I was ready to spend 100$ to improve the sound, usually it costs me much more when I upgrade anything on my stereo
No or maybe. The issue is the potential of introducing EMI or RF noise ( see the posts by @AndrewS aabove). of course this depends on whether ro not you are prone to this. The subjective effect may be severe or ( more likely ) subtle and add hardness or a glaze which can be wearing and be more apparent by its absence. I doubt that there would a wham bam moment.
BTW, the worst RFI I have come across was was a guy who could pick up the sound of BBC2. On his 2 bar electric heater! He lived a few yards from the BBC London transmitter.
Less than a $100 should be adequate. We are taking far less above.
This advice is spot on and what I would and do recommend to anyone asking me about how best to deploy (only) Cat cables in an audio-focused network: shielded up to a switch, unshielded from switch to streamer.
Thanks for the interest and reference; your understanding is correct. I’m afraid I am now a little tired of rebutting erroneuous assertions, particularly those which use provocatively dismissive phrases like “which is what Reiki and many other Audiophiles imagine” when the writer hasn’t heard the sonic results. It’s all quite straightforward, technically sound and experientially proven. Other channels are available if you have any further specific questions.
Ethernet cables grounded at one-end only as advocated/sold by Reiki and others, are not technically sound (pun unintended) in reducing EMI/RFI as those high-frequency noise won’t be shunted to ground by the floating shield.
I encourage folks to not take my word for it, look up the science yourselves.
Suggestion: don’t look it up on “audiophile” product websites, look into actual science of grounding/shielding/HF cable design, especially technical recommendations by the standards bodies (ANSI/IEC) for Ethernet cabling
Theory (partial, corporate) trumps practice (complete, audio) yet again.
Ethernet cable standards are readily available… but irrelevant. They are focused only on avoiding data corruption, and not at all on RFI travelling from one component to another along the shield, as there is no DAC containing analog(ue) circuitry at the end of the line. They are therefore sub-optimal for audio. It’s all logical and science-based.
The shield is not floating, that’s the point.
I encourage folk not to take my or anyone’s word for it; listen for yourselves, as double-blind as you like if that’s your thing, and the difference is clear (pun absolutely intended).
I’m only in this thread at all because a fellow dCS enthusiast mentioned Reiki Audio specifically.
When you post factually incorrect engineering statements around technical domains that I specialise in, I feel compelled to correct it.
The science in this case is very clear. It’s not ambiguous. While shielded Ethernet Cables with only one-end grounded can address ground-loop problems, it does not address EMI/EFI issues. Instead of dissipating EMI/RFI to that single-ended ground, such cables act as an antenna and even amplify high-frequency noise.
If you bother to read the science of why that’s that case, you might actually learn something that could potentially help you improve your products. I’m doing you a favour
Whilst the debate might feel painful for those with clear expertise in the area it provides laypeople like me some indicators of the complexities involved, and might also prompt a bout of learning - what’s not to like?
it’s fascinating that dCS have to use shielded cables for EMI test certification but suggest not for audiophile sensitivities. My take home from that is ‘standards’ present requirements that might not be aligned to audiophile needs. And maybe that’s not surprising given they are aimed at satisfying datacenter requirements.
From my perspective the audio performance of my system took a drastic step backwards when I moved to Sky Max - the router is, I believe, manufactured in Hell by the Devil himself, not even a voltage indication on the back so you can try different smps, it’s 12V though I found. I bet though it passes all technical standards. Yet to my ears it requires a series of switches (3 in total) between it and my upsampler to sound as I expect.
To cite yet another industry player, I recollect Lotus HiFi suggesting that no grounding products (presumably Shunyata / Entreq etc) should be used before the router is ‘dealt with’.
Why this should be is beyond my simple understanding level.
So thank you to those who take time out of their day to debate apparently trivial details offering insights from their own experiences. What a great forum!
I strongly disagree. Perhaps you might explain how a single-end-grounded shield connected only to an upstream switch, on a cable carrying packeted data, might amplify high frequency noise reaching a downstream device. It is at best a bit of a stretch theoretically, and the opposite is true in practice.
Trust me, you’re really not, though it’s nice of you to try.
Guy’s it doesn’t really matter. I feel its only you two that are bothered about it all.
I say, just do whatever you feel is right. I have the shunyata omega ethernet cable in my last leg, it is shielded, connected both ends, has filter things on it, etc. I am not saying it’s what everyone should use, as all that matters is I like what it did over all the other’s I have tried.
But what I am trying to say is, it doesn’t really matter who is right, wrong, etc. You both feel strongly about it, and that’s fine. You both have your views, again that’s fine. But I for one couldn’t give a monkey about who is right or wrong, and feel the debate on it has done it’s round.
So maybe agree to disagree, and leave it there. Go listen to some music, etc. Just a thought guy’s.
Sorry to disagree Dunc, and yes everyone is entitled to their own choice and opinion, however I will do as the manufacturer recommends for obtaining “optimum sonic performance”.
I should probably nuance that, just for the avoidance of any doubt.
Unshielded-to-DAC provides the lowest risk path to optimum SQ. In other words, in the vast majority of systems (with all their different components and environmental factors) unshielded will give optimum results.
In some (but far from all) of these scenarios, where the switch or something else sharing the same ground plane is dumping noise onto it, shielded cables will deliver inferior results. In specific scenarios where there are sources of powerful RFI near the connection between the “last” switch and the dCS streamer (and the switch is not pumping noise onto the ground plane), shielded cables may actually deliver superior SQ.
In scenarios where there is neither noise on the ground plane nor strong RFI, shielded and unshielded will likely deliver equivalent SQ.
In the ”typically found near your DAC category” switch mode power supplies would be an obvious candidate.
In the ”high power” category electric motors with variable speed controllers are common culprits. Washing machines with spin dryers are a favourite, others include HVAC systems, power tools and even things like treadmills.
In the ”typically found around the home” category there are plenty:
Inverters used in solar power installations and EV charging stations
Fluorescent and LED lighting installations (esp dimmers).
Computers and their peripherals
LED and Plasma TVs
WiFi access points, security systems, cordless phones etc.
No or maybe. The issue is the potential of introducing EMI or RF noise ( see the posts by 
It’s all quite straightforward, technically sound and experientially proven. Other channels are available if you have any further specific questions.
